Jump to content

Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Move old talk sections over 1 year old to Archive 3 page
Line 95: Line 95:
:Please make the change. FWiW [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk]] ([[User talk:Bzuk|talk]]) 23:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC).
:Please make the change. FWiW [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk]] ([[User talk:Bzuk|talk]]) 23:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC).
::Done. First edit but I think I did it right. [[User:Coyote1066|Coyote1066]] ([[User talk:Coyote1066|talk]]) 00:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
::Done. First edit but I think I did it right. [[User:Coyote1066|Coyote1066]] ([[User talk:Coyote1066|talk]]) 00:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

== Location for First Flight/which base it was introduced at? ==

Where was this aircraft's first flight at or shown to the military and at what base was it
EthanKid17 17:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:54, 10 May 2011

Upgraded USAF F-15Cs should be split off to its own 'F-15C Golden Eagle' article

In recent years the F-15C was seen as a relic of the Cold War and the USAF has decided to retire nearly half of the fleet. After internal discussion within the service, a new role has been planned for the USAF F-15C. The remaining USAF-operated F-15C's and F-15D's are undergoing extensive modifications to their air superiority mission capability and therefore these models are becoming entirely different animals from the original F-15C and F-15D models. The USAF is not the only operator of the F-15C and F-15D, but the USAF-owned models are the only ones to receive the 'Golden Eagle' upgrades. (Israel, Japan, and Saudi Arabia operate their own customized versions of the F-15C and F-15D.) Boeing is under contract to upgrade 14 ANG and 10 Air Force F-15C/D aircraft with AESA. All USAF F-15C's and F-15D's are planned to be upgraded.

The latest improvements include a Raytheon APG-63(V)3 AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar, AIM9X and AIM-120C/D missiles, fused situational awareness displays, fighter-to-fighter data link, GPS navigation, and off-boresight helmet targeting using JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System). Boeing was selected as the prime contractor for the AESA radar modernization program. Mark Bass, Boeing’s vice president of the F-15 program, is quoted online in various news pieces stating that the AESA radar is a one-and-a-half times improvement in target acquisition range. The Raytheon APG-63(V)3 AESA radar being installed on the F-15s combines the operationally proven APG-63(V)2 software with the advanced APG-79 Transmit/Receive hardware found on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Raytheon claims their AESA radar replacement is 50 times more reliable than the mechanically scanned antenna it replaces.

F-22 stealth fighter production is capped, so USAF officials are upgrading their best F-15C with advanced, long-range radars to beef up the air dominance force. Because of the larger size of the F-15s radar and the aircraft’s greater flight endurance, they also will serve as “stand-in” electronic warfare jamming and attack aircraft as part of the Air Force’s composite air dominance force that also includes stealthy F-22s stationed at Langley Air Force Base, Va. The first F-15C modified with the Raytheon radar was declared operational with the Florida Air National Guard’s 125th Fighter Wing the first week of April, 2010. The Florida, Louisiana and Oregon ANG will field the first 48 V3 radar-equipped F-15Cs. Massachusetts and Montana ANG units will follow so that the East, West and Gulf coasts have a cruise missile defense capability.

Sources:

First Operational F-15C with AESA Radar Unveiled (Air Force News — By Boeing Company on April 14, 2010 at 6:39 am) http://www.defencetalk.com/first-operational-f-15c-with-aesa-radar-unveiled-25726/

Upgraded F-15Cs to protect F-22s (AVIATION WEEK - Posted by David A. Fulghum at 4/14/2010 9:07 AM CDT) http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a39df4196-72dd-4601-b2ec-7784bff0ffc6&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

F-15C Eagle: Relic of the Cold War? (Paper by Daniel J. Garoutte, Major, USAF submitted April 2007) http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:l31L0tSIWvUJ:https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153/q_act_downloadpaper/q_obj_bf37800f-9795-4018-b4bd-b1b8cdf8a07f/display.aspx%3Frs%3Denginespage+F-15C+Golden+Eagle&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg2eU2Ji6Z99THqflRDzlNYEAzvrufNHKSbwfJdK3JVzwl-tnsI_YCKPSHEzaJF2SSoGTqUyDgM6si4k5zNDn3p8hAfwVw2be72bAIrwnnlpRDSNcqlWVMIl1RHoCOBVvV3S9OH&sig=AHIEtbRw1_2A6iYrdfzwt7CPugBwAfu9Xg Mm94438 (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)mm94438[reply]

Could someone tell me who deleted my contribute ?!

"Soviet/Russian sources state that three Israeli F-15s and one F-4 were shot down in October 1983 by the newly delivered MiG-23MLs, with no Syrian losses since." http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/bv/mig23/mig23.html (use translator) It is just another point of view. It is a encyclopedia so it should be objective and based on facts gathered from different sources. Pls contribute this to the article. --Saiga 13:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That appears to be a self published source and is not a reliable source. So that was removed with reasons such as these stated in the edit summaries. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thrust to Weight Ratio

The current TWR numbers include PW-229's in the F-15 C. This is not possible as the 229 is only used in the E. The info seems to come from the AF fact sheet, which makes no distinction between the F-15 C and F-15 E. 229 should not be mentioned on the F-15 C page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.41.159 (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I was thinking, why not just list the stats for all the F-15 variants in a table form, rather than just one variant? Some of the aviation-based wikipedia pages on airliners, such as the Boeing 737 page, have such a set-up, which is fantastic AVKent882 (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - we normally only feature one variant in the spec section of these articles and any differences can be dealt with in the text. If you are going to ask this on lots of aircraft pages then perhaps you should take it to the WP:AIRCRAFT talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to create an aviation based wiki site, which would be more finely geared to the topic of aviation? AVKent882 (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try http://plane.spottingworld.com MilborneOne (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are not enough differences in the main specs to need a table. The basic dimensions are unchanged or maybe changed slightly. The main change has been increases in the F-15's max takeoff weight from the A/B variants to the C/Ds and then the E-model versions. -fnlayson (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting a forum post as a source?

The first few line under "Recent service" read "An earlier variant of the Indian Sukhoi Su-30MKI, the Su-30MK, took part in war games with the United States Air Force (USAF) during Cope-India 04, where USAF F-15 Eagles were pitted against Indian Air Force (IAF) Su-30 MKs, Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s and elderly MiG-21s. The results have been widely publicized, with India winning "90% of the mock combat missions".[63]"

The source is from a forum post in the Pakistan defence forum (a military forum for enthusiasts). Further the incident to which the post is referring to is widely disputed as inaccurate, and misleading due to the conditions the F15s had been ordered to fight in. Further, much of the post is just not true- such as when he alleges an unnamed US general goes to Moscow and asserts how "superior their fighter is to the US fighter".

I urge you to look at the source, and agree to remove it as it is unreliable, misleading, and invalid on the premise of original 'research'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminder. That part was rewritten using aviation/press articles instead. -fnlayson (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Boeing F-15 Eagle

Why is this page called McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle and not Boeing F-15 Eagle? McDD merged with Boeing in 1997 and so Boeing has been producing all F-15s for the last 13 years and all articles since then refer to it as a Boeing product. The page should be renamed the Boeing F-15 Eagle with a redirect from McDD and the same change should be made to the F-15E Strike Eagle page. Mztourist (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - F-15A/B/C/Ds have not been produced for the US since 1991, and the last non-Strike Eagle version, the F-15J, was produced in 1999. The bulk of production therefore occured under McDonnell Douglas, as did all the design work. - BilCat (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We aren't required to use the current manufacturer's name here. The bulk of the F-15s produced were by McDonnell Douglas. -fnlayson (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't we have the Hughes 500 and the Hughes AH-64 pages rather than the MD500 and Boeing AH-64? Calling the page McDD F-15 is archaic and can be covered in the history section. The F-15 is a Boeing product now, only old aircraft enthusiasts (like us presumably) will remember it was once the McDD F-15. Mztourist (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there needs to be consistency in naming. If the criteria is design then McDD is obviously the correct name; if its based on number manufactured, then its probably still McDD, if you exclude modifications and remanufacturing; if its based on manufacturer and general usage today then it should be Boeing. I have just done a production (and order) count of the F-15E and Boeing has, or soon will have produced the majority of F-15Es, so it definitely should be renamed Boeing F-15E, just as the C-17 is listed as a Boeing product, though designed and the first few produced by McDD. Mztourist (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no firm WPAIR guidelines on which manufacturer name to use on aircraft articles. These are decided on an individual basis at each article, in line with the unique history of each aircraft. However, preference is generally given to the manufacturer that designed the aircraft and produced a substantial number of the production run, even if it's not a majortiy of the aircraft produced.
Also, having variant articles, as with the F-15, gives the opportunity to have the older variants under the original manufacturer, as with the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet, with the newer variants under the current manufacturer, as with Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Boeing EA-18G Growler. In the Super Hornet/Growler situation, none of the production aircraft were made by McDD. The article titles for the OH-6/MD 500 faamily also show the progression of the manufacturers over the years: Hughes OH-6 Cayuse, McDonnell Douglas MD 500 Defender, MD Helicopters MH-6 Little Bird, MD Helicopters MD 500, and Boeing AH-6. Simply picking out the ones that use MD Helicopters to prove your point is misleading, and your proposals would loose that historical progression of maunufacturer by the era each variant was primarily produced.
If you want the titles to have constistency, then trying to move every offending article individually will be doing things the hard way. You'd be better served by going to the Aircraft porject talk page, and proposing a project-wide standard for the naming. Once a consensus has been achived, then proposals can be made to move the articles that need to be renamed under the consensus guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the approach on the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Boeing EA-18G Growler and agree that there can be a progression of aircraft and manufacturers over the years as for the OH-6/MD-500 family. I am not trying to mislead or lose the historic progression of aircraft variants or their manufacturers. I accept that the F-15 Eagle should remain as a McDD product as it is no longer in production and the vast majority were produced by McDD, not Boeing. However the F-15E is a different case, it remains in production and the majority have or soon will have been produced by Boeing, not McDD. I don't see the need to try to get a project-wide standard on naming as the number of legacy aircraft currently produced post-aerospace mergers is probably quite small. I note that you have agreed to the renaming of the T-45, so why don't you agree to the renaming of the F-15E? Mztourist (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The F-15E is not being discussed here, as you've raised that discussion elsewhere. That's partly why I'm suggesting you raise the issue at WTAIR, so we can keep the arguments in one place. - BilCat (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction in USAF Operators

Please note that the 23rd FS was never an F-15 operator (nor part of the 36th FW, Bitburg AB), in its place should be the 525th FS. Please reference the 525th FS page (currently an F-22 operator): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/525th_Fighter_Squadron. Coyote1066 (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please make the change. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Done. First edit but I think I did it right. Coyote1066 (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Location for First Flight/which base it was introduced at?

Where was this aircraft's first flight at or shown to the military and at what base was it EthanKid17 17:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)